Shoot-to-wound advocates watch too much television

imported post



The Seattle GRE looks at "shooting to wound" as an empty-headed Utopian philosophy

http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m6d2-Shoot-to-wound-advocates-have-watched-too-much-television


If that doesn't work, try this:

http://tinyurl.com/n2c2lg

imported post

Great article. Thanks for the reference links too, good reading.

Have to agree totally, shoot to stop, and shoot the body zones most likely to stop the threat the fastest.

imported post

Am I... Am I actually going to have to agree with Dave Workman? :what:

imported post

grishnav wrote:

Am I... Am I actually going to have to agree with Dave Workman? :what:

Click to expand...

Don't do it grishnav!

Don't destroy a perfect record of opposition....its not worth it!

imported post

Good article Dave. I understand the principal of shoot to stop... but the idea that you're not shooting to kill is silly.

I in no way advocate shooting a guy... then, while he's unconscious bleeding to death, shooting him again... like so many tried to say I was saying... I wasjusttrying to point outthat in a high stress situation (which only the people who were there can tell us about),when only seconds have passed, and you still perceive a threat...shooting a perp again may be a product of adrenaline... for the OKC shooting you reference... only 47 seconds had passed since the first shot to the second round of shots... 47 seconds is hardly enough time for someone who does not do this for a living to discern that the threat has passed... I've seen bullet wounds to the head when I worked in the emergency room and for smaller caliber weapons, they almost don't seem that bad although the bullet sometimes ricochets around the brain a bit pretty much dooming them. But people move after being shot... they may even seem to have their wits about them... even though they may already be brain dead... if the guy had waited 2 or 3 minutes and THEN shot the kid... I'd say charge him with murder.

As for the whole idea that "Take him out" does not mean kill him is disingenuous. Sharpshooters are trained to kill their target. A center mass shot with a sniper rifle is pretty much going to go right through the heart... and that is pretty much sure death... what does it say about us that we cannot even call a spade a spade?

I agree on the whole "shoot to wound" nonsense... but if you're going to be aiming a weapon at a human in self defense, and your training was that you shoot center mass with two shots... and if that didn't work, shoot the head. Then, look at the bullets... we're talking about using hollow points which are designed to do the most damage...i.e. kill.

Look, I realize we live in a society that has a bunch of whiny nattering nabobs who scream for the release of reformed gangbanger murderers out of one side of their mouth and for the prosecution of homeowners and business owners who defend themselves with deadly force out of the other. We also have a society of people where many think you never have to kill... that there is alway another option... and that anyone who kills is a trigger happy nut-job. Unless you're a poor black teen armed robber... and then, you're just lashing out because you've been oppressed all your life... makes you just want to slap them silly

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Good article Dave. I understand the principal of shoot to stop... but the idea that you're not shooting to kill is silly.


As for the whole idea that "Take him out" does not mean kill him is disingenuous.
I agree on the whole "shoot to wound" nonsense... but if you're going to be aiming a weapon at a human in self defense, and your training was that you shoot center mass with two shots... and if that didn't work, shoot the head. Then, look at the bullets... we're talking about using hollow points which are designed to do the most damage...i.e. kill.

Click to expand...

No, I think you have this wrong.
You are "shooting to stop." Period.
If that means incapacitate, that's what it means. The perp is no longer a threat, whether he is dead, seriously wounded, clobbered unconscious...he is out of the fight.
If he IS dead, well, too bad.

S

imported post

Good article Dave.

I guess I'll have to stop practicing shooting a gun out of someones hand.

imported post

Dave Workman wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Good article Dave. I understand the principal of shoot to stop... but the idea that you're not shooting to kill is silly.


As for the whole idea that "Take him out" does not mean kill him is disingenuous.
I agree on the whole "shoot to wound" nonsense... but if you're going to be aiming a weapon at a human in self defense, and your training was that you shoot center mass with two shots... and if that didn't work, shoot the head. Then, look at the bullets... we're talking about using hollow points which are designed to do the most damage...i.e. kill.

Click to expand...

No, I think you have this wrong.
You are "shooting to stop." Period.
If that means incapacitate, that's what it means. The perp is no longer a threat, whether he is dead, seriously wounded, clobbered unconscious...he is out of the fight.
If he IS dead, well, too bad.

S

Click to expand...

I guess I'm confused... I was under the assumption that center mass meant center chest... and center chest will penetrate the heart. If everyone trains to shoot center mass... whether they hit center mass or not... they're training to kill. Now is it OK for them to finish a guy off who's unconscious and bleeding, but still alive... to me, it depends... in the heat of the moment... with only seconds having passed since the beginning of the incident... one cannot be expected to assume the threat is over... especially if the perpetrator is still moving... your thoughts will instantly go to "what if I only grazed him... what if he was wearing a ballistic vest.... what if he is moving for a weapon?" All of these questions if asked within the first minute of an encounter are valid and I think that if a person acts on his fear within seconds... yes, even 47 seconds after the beginning of the encounter.... he is justified in doing what he must to stop the perceived threat.If it is many minutes after the beginning of the encounter... then, the story is different... if the perp has been down for three or four minutes without event... one can no longer perceive him as a threat... but I give the benefit of the doubt to the victim and not the perpetrator in any case where the time elapsed is under a minute.

imported post

Well, shooting for CoM is what people train to do, but these are not necessarily always fatal wounds.

Likewise, shooting CoM with a handgun does not always guarantee someone is going down for the count.

There is no hard and fast and set in stone rule for bullet wounds. Fatal for one person may not be fatal but incapacitating for another.

It ain't Hollywood, but it is life.

imported post

That is true... while I have never personally shot anyone and hope I never have to... if it comes to an intruder or my family... I'll chose my family.

I read a story on these forums that described a non-professional gun carrier helping a police officer and having to shoot the assailant many times before he stopped beating the officer. I imagine you shoot until they stop moving towards you or towards a weapon... my instructor back in the 90s when I took my most recent shooting lessons always said... make sure the attacker can no longer threaten you... if he's still moving in your direction... or reaching for anything... shoot first and ask questions later... you don't want him grabbing a gun you didn't see before and shooting you.

imported post

Shooting to Stop (normally by CoM shots) is banking on the fact you take out the central nervous system. So by shooting to stop, you could kill, cause paralysis, or a host of other nasty permanent damage. But you might save your own skin.

Faster you stop some one trying to take your life the better.

imported post

RSO1911 wrote:

Shooting to Stop (normally by CoM shots) is banking on the fact you take out the central nervous system. So by shooting to stop, you could kill, cause paralysis, or a host of other nasty permanent damage. But you might save your own skin.

Faster you stop some one trying to take your life the better.

Click to expand...

Usually it's considered a bad thing to shoot someone in the back. CoM shots are attempting to shoot the heart, not the spine.

imported post

As Washingtonian knows, I agree with Dave's comments on "shoot to stop".

However, whoever came up with the idea of "shoot to wound" is an idiot. "Shoot to kill" may not be smart in the courtroom, but "shoot to wound" is just ******* retarded, anywhere. :quirky

imported post

I like many gun owners haven't had the advantage of military gun training or even tactical training. I would like to think I would just shoot to stop, but research and talking to people who have been in fire fights my conclusion is that adrenaline and the primal urge for survival takes over. A calm collected 2 shots to body and one to head, isn't the reality in most civilian situation. Many shoot until the gun is empty. Prosecutors try to make this out to be a bad thing, but its not when it is your life on the line.

So in my opinion you have to be prepared for the fact that when you pull the trigger you will kill someone, and not think I will shoot to stop, you will waste precious nano seconds trying to figure out how to wound and not kill. One reason I open carry, less likely I will ever have to make the decision to pull the trigger.

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

RSO1911 wrote:

Shooting to Stop (normally by CoM shots) is banking on the fact you take out the central nervous system. So by shooting to stop, you could kill, cause paralysis, or a host of other nasty permanent damage. But you might save your own skin.

Faster you stop some one trying to take your life the better.

Click to expand...

Usually it's considered a bad thing to shoot someone in the back. CoM shots are attempting to shoot the heart, not the spine.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Did I say shoot them in the back? I plainly said CoM shots aiming for the central nervous system. That means good aim, and penetration. The central nervous system also includes the brain. It means shooting them as they come at you, and having a gun with enough penetration to drive through thier body, and clip thier spine (which drops them like a puppet with thier strings cut!).

CoM shots are NOT(NOT!) shots aimed for the heart! A bullet hitting the heart does not have as good of chance instantly stopping an aggressor. In fact, depending on caliber, and how it goes through the heart, it may not even slow them down! Especially if the person is jacked up on drugs, in a rage, or has been shot before (or is very muscular, and the round does not penetrate).

imported post

svg,

So in my opinion you have to be prepared for the fact that when you pull the trigger you will kill someone

Click to expand...

Change that "will" to "might" and I'm with you... but...

and not think I will shoot to stop, you will waste precious nano seconds trying to figure out how to wound and not kill.

Click to expand...

NO! "Shoot to stop" is not just another way of saying "Shoot to wound"; it has nothing to do with how you shoot, but rather why. This is directly pertinent with your interface to the legal system, as the legal system considers motive to be vitally important in relation to culpability: accidently kill someone, and it's manslaughter. Do it in the heat of the moment, it's murder 2. Plan it for several weeks, and now you're up for murder 1. But do it in response to an unprovoked attack? Now it's a justifiable homicide.

imported post

Stop the threat is the bottomline. I think we all agree with that.

In the article, the sniper shot center mass. The sniper stopped the threat of the guy shooting at the police helicopter.... as ifthe guy was able to down it - think of a helicopter crashing into a neighborhood - not good at all.

The shot so happened to cause death but in the end it was and did stop the threat. You can argue if he was shot in the head and with a sniper rifle at say 50-75 yards that's not a hard target to hit for a sniper. But on the otherhand if you are thinking of asking a sniper to shoot the gun out of his hands than that's just Hollywood.

Yes, it can be done in a controlled environment but not in the real world. In a controlled environment we'll just have the BG hold really really still and draw a bullseye on his shoulder or gun.

For most of us we're talking about using our sidearms not a scoped-out rifle. To say you'll shoot center mass is one thing (which is a good size target). What you actually hit is another. I do advocate to shoot center mass.

You're aiming at center mass so to increase your probability of stopping the threat.

To say I'll shoot to wound... meaning shoot an extremity or grazing shot is laughable. We've allbeen to the range and at a stagnet target at7-10 yards (21-30 feet)what do you see downrange? Most people are all over the place in their shot placement. They may be aiming at that big bullseye but what they're hitting is anything but.

So, your a "good shot?" You've been shooting for 30+ years and well experienced? I'll add afactor for you: Shoot on the move, under stress using time or something to get your heart up to speed. I say let'stake you to an IDPA or USPSA match and we'll see how well you can shoot. It's an eye opener. :what:

imported post

oldkim wrote:

But on the otherhand if you are thinking of asking a sniper to shoot the gun out of his hands than that's just Hollywood.

Click to expand...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4129543217664527036

imported post

Good video: I didn't say it couldn't be done but look at the cirumstances. The guy was sitting and pretty much holding still. Basically it's a situation where this guy wanted attention. He wasn't actively threatening, the sniper was in position and the guy held still enough and the sniper go the green light to attempt the shot.

I imagine the sniper was about 40 yards at best, maybe closer. The circumstances were good and fortunately for the guy the shot was taken. Change the scenario around. Have the guy moving around, waving and threatening and you've got a whole different shot placement - center mass.

imported post

kparker wrote:

svg,

So in my opinion you have to be prepared for the fact that when you pull the trigger you will kill someone

Click to expand...

Change that "will" to "might" and I'm with you... but...

and not think I will shoot to stop, you will waste precious nano seconds trying to figure out how to wound and not kill.

Click to expand...

NO! "Shoot to stop" is not just another way of saying "Shoot to wound"; it has nothing to do with how you shoot, but rather why. This is directly pertinent with your interface to the legal system, as the legal system considers motive to be vitally important in relation to culpability: accidently kill someone, and it's manslaughter. Do it in the heat of the moment, it's murder 2. Plan it for several weeks, and now you're up for murder 1. But do it in response to an unprovoked attack? Now it's a justifiable homicide.

Click to expand...

I agree with what you are saying but I was sayin "will kill" because it stresses the seriousness of the action pulling your trigger. Like thinking if I drink and drive I will kill someone (bad analogy I know) makes it more serious in your mind than saying if I drink and drive a might kill someone. I have no desire to kill but if I pull the trigger and I am aiming center mass it probably will happen.

Second part again I agree with you but in those precious nano seconds you can't think about just stopping you need to just shoot. If you are thinking how can I stop this guy with minimal damage you are thinking about just wounding him and you are wasting time. And I was only talking about the unprovoked or provoked attacks on our persons or somebody else. On looking back I didn't quite word that last part correctly.

I am just saying in the heat of the moment people, unless they are very highly trained, and even then not always the case. Will shoot until the percieved threat is done. I would like to think I am better than that and will be tactical and by the book. But the reality of the situation is most people are not.